Regional Trial Court

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

6TH Judicial Region
Branch __
Kalibo, Aklan
ROSE M. BATO,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. ____
FOR: SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE
AND DAMAGES
-versus-
JUAN S. LEGARDA,
Defendant.
X-------------------------------X
ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIMS
DEFENDANT, through the undersigned counsels, and unto this

Honorable Court most respectfully allege that:
1. The defendant admits the contents of paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 insofar

as the plaintiff’s and defendant’s personal circumstances are concerned.
2. The defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 4, 5,

6, 7 and 10 of the complaint.
3. The defendant specifically denies the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 8 and 9, the truth being that on January 20, 2021, when the
parties agreed to have the Deed of Conditional Sale notarized in the law
office of Atty. Jose Rizal, Juan had an emergency that he immediately went
to their house because his father had a hypertensive attack. Frantically
panicking because the condition of his father just keeps on worsening, Juan
rushed the latter to the hospital. After a couple of hours, he came to realize
that he needs to give a call to his other family members; unfortunately, he
1
can no longer find his phone. He diligently searched all over the place but
his exhaustive efforts failed. Hence, he went to the police station right after
on that 21st day of January 2021 to file a police blotter of his lost phone.
Attached herein and marked as Annex “1” is the police blotter filed by the
defendant.
4. The defendant was already using a different Facebook account

when Bato started contacting him; this fact was also made known to the
plaintiff when Legarda added him on Facebook attempting to demand
payment. However, Bato subsequently blocked him on his new Facebook
account and deliberately continued to message him on the old account
despite Bato’s knowledge of the fact that Legarda already has a new
Facebook account. Thus, there is a showing that there was an intentional
evasion of plaintiff so that the defendant cannot communicate to the plaintiff
his demand for full payment. Attached herein and marked as Annex “2” is
the friend request sent by Legarda to Bato and a notification on the former’s
account that the friend request was subsequently accepted by Bato. Also
attached hereto and marked as Annex “3” is a proof that Bato blocked
Legarda because the former’s name is not reflected on the dropdown list
when typed in the search engine button. Lastly, attached hereto and marked
as Annex “4 is the statement of Atty. Jose Rizal’s secretary, Mavy Delgado,
rebutting the claims of Bato that she went and waited in the law office of
Atty. Rizal on March 30, 2021 and March 31, 2021 to give the full payment
to the defendant.
5. The defendant admits conditionally the allegations set forth in

paragraph 9 to the effect that his acts, as well as the need of the plaintiff to
transfer the ownership and title of the property under her name prompted the
plaintiff to seek the assistance of the lawyer. It was held in the case of
MANUEL UY & SONS, INC., VS. VALBUECO, INCORPORATED, G.R.
No. 179594, that in a conditional sale, which is considered as a contract to
sell, ownership remains with the vendor and does not pass to the vendee
until full payment of the purchase price. Hence, it necessarily follows that
possession still remains with the defendant. Therefore, the possession of the
plaintiff over the property is unlawful and encroaches over the right of
ownership of the defendant.
6. The defendant partially admits and partially denies the allegations

contained in paragraph 11. Defendant admits the fact that he refused to
accept payment of the remaining balance of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS ( Php 500, 000. 00) because no sufficient notice was ever given to
him. Despite the plaintiff's claim that several notices were sent to the
defendant for the full payment of obligation, there was no clear showing that
2
a letter, other than the demand letter, was ever sent to the defendant’s
address informing him that Bato already wants to meet and pay in full the
purchase price. Attached herein and marked as Annex “5” is the transmittal
form showing that only a demand letter was received by the defendant and
no other notices were ever sent and received prior to the demand letter.
Defendant denies that he did not voluntarily prevent the fulfillment of

the condition to deem it fulfilled as provided for Under Article 1186 of the
Civil Code, and further denies that the claim of the plaintiff that an action for
specific performance is proper in this case under Article 1357 of the same
Code. A consignation would have been the proper remedy.
SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
The defendant repleads the foregoing allegations, and avers further that:
7. The plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant.
It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Julie Nabus, Michelle
Nabus and Betty Tolero vs. Joaquin and Julia Pacson, G.R No. 161318, that
in a conditional sale, as in a contract to sell, ownership remains with the
vendor and does not pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase
price. The full payment of the purchase price partakes of a suspensive
condition, and non-fulfillment of the condition prevents the obligation to sell
from arising. Further, the same jurisprudence provides that in contracts to
sell, specific performance is an improper remedy to compel the seller to
execute the deed of sale before full payment of the purchase price.
In the case of Ayala Life Insurance, Inc. v Ray Burton Development

Corporation, it was held:
“Evidently, before the remedy of specific performance

may be availed of, there must be a breach of the contract.

Under a contract to sell, the title of the thing to be sold is
retained by the seller until the purchaser makes full payment of
the agreed purchase price. Such payment is a positive
suspensive condition, the non-fulfillment of which
is not a breach of contract but merely an event that prevents
the seller from conveying title to the purchaser. The
non-payment of the purchase price renders the contract to
3
sell ineffective and without force and effect. Thus, a cause of
action for specific performance does not arise.”
Here, the un-notarized Deed of Conditional Sale is considered as a

contract to sell because it is subject to a suspensive condition which is the
full payment of the agreed price before ownership of the subject property
could be transferred to the plaintiff. Such express reservation is evidenced by
paragraphs 6 and 8 of the un-notarized Deed of Conditional Sale attached
and marked as Annex “B” of the plaintiff’s complaint.
Although the plaintiff may aver that they have already tendered their
payment, it would not still produce any legal effect because they failed to
complete it by consignation. Article 1256 of the New Civil Code provides
that if the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses
without just cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released from
responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due.
Furthermore, Article 1260 also provides that once the consignation

has been duly made, the debtor may ask the judge to order the cancellation
of the obligation.
It is therefore apparent that the plaintiff has not exhausted other

remedies yet or has not complied with the condition precedent of
consignation before asking this Honorable Court to adjudge on the merits of
its case. As it had been due for a long time, the plaintiff could have
consigned her payment to the court as provided by law.
Moreover, plaintiff also erred in instituting a case for the specific

performance and damages because it was held many times in the long list of
cases by the Supreme Court that in a Deed of Conditional Sale, the contract
is merely a contract to sell which is not yet a perfected contract and thus,
renders the specific performance and damages as an improper remedy.
COUNTERCLAIMS
Herein defendant hereby repleads by reference the foregoing

allegations and further allege that:
8. In filing the malicious and baseless complaint, to pay the following

fees:
a. P50,000.00 as moral damages for the mental anguish suffered

by the defendant for besmirching his reputation.
4
b. That owing further to the filing of the instant malicious and
baseless complaint, herein defendant was forced to litigate and
in the process incurred litigation expenses including but not
limited to attorney’s fees in the amount of THIRTY
THOUSAND PESOS(P30,000.00) plus P2,500.00 appearance
fee for every hearing in court.
9. That in prematurely possessing the property of defendant by way of

threat and strategy pending the execution of Deed of Absolute Sale, plaintiff
encroaches over the right to ownership and possession of the defendant is
therefore liable for FORCIBLE ENTRY.
In paragraph 9 of the plaintiff’s complaint, Rose Bato claimed that she

had already taken possession of the subject property of the Deed of
Conditional Sale several months after the incident on January 20, 2021
happened.
The defendant’s caretaker, Anthony Sta. Maria, would testify to the

fact that the plaintiff, sometime on March 1, 2021, went to the subject
property and brought with her gunmen who threatened the caretaker that
they would shoot him if he would not let Bato get inside the property.
Attached hereto is Annex “6” which are the CCTV footages

evidencing the threat and intimidation of Bato and her gunmen to attack the
caretaker if they would not be allowed entry inside the premises of the
subject property. Also attached hereto is Annex “7” which encapsulates
Anthony’s testimony of what transpired during that day.
After the incident, Anthony informed the defendant, evidenced by a

text message and herein attached and marked as Annex “8”, of the unlawful
entry into the property of Bato and her gunmen.
NAME OF WITNESSES
AND SUMMARY OF INTENDED TESTIMONIES
10. MAVY DELGADO, will present herself as a witness, who will

testify:
a. To prove that she is the secretary of Atty. Jose P. Rizal;
5
b. To prove that she personally knows Rose M. Bato, plaintiff in
this case, and Juan S. Legarda, defendant in this case;
c. To prove that Rose Bato has not appeared in the law office of
Atty. Jose P. Rizal and has failed to give the full payment to
Juan S. Legarda on March 30, 2021 and March 31, 2021.
The judicial affidavit of the witness which will serve as her direct
testimony is attached herewith as Annex “4”.
11. ANTHONY STA. MARIA, will present himself as a witness, who

will testify:
a. To prove that he is the assigned caretaker of Mr. Juan S. Legarda

who is charged to take care of the property being disputed in the
above case.
b. To prove that Rose M. Bato had visited the property in broad

daylight and had asked to allow her to enter as she is the new
owner of the said property.
c. To prove that he refused such entry, as he was not duly

informed by Juan S. Legarda.
d. To prove that upon refusal, the company of Rose M. Bato had

allegedly threatened him as they were armed with small hand
pistols, which eventually prompted him to allow entry and
vacate the premises.
The judicial affidavit of the witness which will serve as his direct
testimony is attached herewith as Annex “7”.
OBJECT AND DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS
AND THE PURPOSE THEREOF
12. The following are the documentary and object exhibits, and the
purpose for which they are being presented.
a. Copy of Police Blotter – to prove that he lost his bag, which

contained his personal cell phone and other articles, on January
20, 2021.
6
b. Copy of Screenshot of Friend Request of Defendant and its
Acceptance– to prove that he added Rose Bato on Facebook to
communicate with the latter.
c. Copy of Screenshot of Defendant’s Facebook Dropdown List

and Chat Message – to prove that defendant demanded payment
but plaintiff blocked him on Facebook.
d. Copy of Transmittal Form - to prove that only a demand letter

was received by the defendant and no other notices were ever
sent and received prior to it.
e. Copy of Screenshot of CCTV Footages - to prove that threat and

intimidation were employed by the plaintiff and her gunmen for
refusing entry in the subject property.
f. Copy of Text Message of Anthony Sta. Maria - to prove the

unlawful entry of Bato and her gunmen into the defendant’s
property.
PRAYER/RELIEF
WHEREFORE, it is earnestly prayed of this Honorable Court that

judgment be rendered DISMISSING the complaint for no cause of action
and GRANTING defendant’s counterclaim by ORDERING the plaintiff to
pay herein defendant the following:
1. FIFTY THOUSAND(P50,000.00)PESOS as moral damages;
2. THIRTY THOUSAND(30,000.00)PESOS as for the attorney’s

fees plus the further sum of P2,500.00 for every appearance in
court.
3. Costs of this suit.
4. Reconveyance of possession based on ownership.
5. Ordering the liability of the said defendant extinguished.
Further pray for other relief as may be deemed just and equitable
under the premises.
7
Kalibo, Aklan, April 7,2023.
BARTOLOME, DELA CRUZ, NACAR, & PAUNE LAW FIRM

Counsel for the Defendant
ACC Building, Archbishop Gabriel B. Reyes, St. Kalibo, Aklan
Tel No. (036) 2689730
Email: bdnp. lawfirm@gmail.com
By:
MYLENE S. BARTOLOME
Notary Public
A.M. No/ Comm No. 1112
Date and Place Issued: 09/20/20 in Kalibo, Aklan
Commission Expires on Dec. 31, 2025
Roll No. 20190092 / March 21, 2020
Lifetime IBP No. 168765 / 04.12.2020 / Aklan
PTR No. 6415654 / 06.24.2020 / Aklan
MCLE Compliance No. V-00006785 / 05.23.2020
Tel No. (036) 2689730
ANNYKA FRANCES BEATRIZ C. DELA CRUZ

Notary Public
Roll No. 20190093/ October 21, 2020
PTR No. 9515365/ 08.15.2020 / Aklan
8
Tel No. (036) 2689730
JERENA J. NACAR
Notary Public
Roll No. 91625 / June 21, 2020
PTR No. 0694537/ 01.05.2020 / Aklan
Tel No. (036) 2689730
KEVIN S. PAUNE
Notary Public
Roll No. 87651 / July 21, 2020
PTR No. 089284/ 02.06.2020 / Aklan
Tel No. (036) 2689730
9
VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
I, Juan S. Legarda, Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident of

Poblacion, Kalibo, Aklan, Philippines after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, depose and say:
1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;
2. I have caused the preparation of this Answer with Special

Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims;
3. I have read and understood the contents of the same and that the
allegations stated therein are true and correct to the best of my
personal knowledge and based on the authentic records;
4. That I hereby certify that at the time of the filing of this

complaint , I have not commenced any other action involving the
same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency; that to the best of our knowledge, no such action
is pending or was terminated in the Supreme Court, similar action has
been filed or is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
or any other tribunal or agency wherein the original pleading and
sworn certification has been filed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this

7th day of April 2023 in Kalibo, Aklan, Philippines.
JUAN S.LEGARDA
Affiant
10
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this __April 2,
2023___________, by _____Juan Legarda________ who exhibited to
me (his/her) Community Tax Certificate No. ____7747474_________ issued
at ___Kalibo, Aklan__________, Philippines on ___ September 2,
2018__________.
Notary Public
Doc. No. ___12___;
Page No. __23____;
Book No. _5_____;
Series of ___2023___;
Copy furnished by electronic email:
Atty. Ervin Ralph Venus

Gallo, Fegarido, Venus & Ostan Law Office
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Email: gfvo.lawoffice@gmail.com
Explanation
This certifies that personal service was not resorted to for the reason
that due to time and manpower constraints, the same is impracticable.
11
ANNEX “1”

NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE 6
AKLAN POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
KALIBO MUNICIPAL POLICE STATION
Brgy. Poblacion, Kalibo, Aklan
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following excerpts from the police blotter of Aklan
Municipal Police Station, to wit:
BLOTTER ENTRY NO. 1024

NATURE OF CASE/DISPOSITION: Reported lost bag
PLACE: St. Gabriel Medical Center, Kalibo, Aklan
DATE: January 20, 2021
TIME: Around 9:00 PM
VICTIM: Juan S. Legarda, of legal age, single, Filipino, resident of Poblacion, Kalibo, Aklan,
Philippines
A / Lost: Jansport sling bag, color black, containing the following to wit:
1. National ID in the name of the victim
2. Vaccination card named after the victim
3. Personal cell phone of victim, Oppo A94 with cracked screen
4. Leather wallet, color brown, with an amount estimated at seven thousand pesos
5. Senior Citizen ID of Juan S. Legarda Sr., father of the victim
6. DBP Atm Card under the victim’s name
Facts: Victim personally appeared to this station, reported, and alleged that on the above place
on January 22, 2021, while he was tendering on the needs of his father in the emergency room,
he noticed that the article stated above was no longer on the hospital table that he previously
placed on. Despite diligent efforts to locate the same turned futile as of this time reported,
prompted to report this station and put into blotter.
A/Taken: booked an recorded

Remarks: future references
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued upon the request of JUAN S. LEGARDA for whatever legal
purpose it may deem necessary.
Poblacion, Kalibo, Aklan, January 21, 2021
12
Prepared by:
Shindey Felectias Saraum Taboco

Police Officer 1
Admin/Clearance PNCO
Noted by:
Henry Farnasi Binas

Police Superintendent
Chief of Police
Amount paid: P35.00

OR No.: 1377803
Issued at: Kalibo, Aklan
Issued on: January 21, 2021
13
ANNEX “2”
14
ANNEX “3”
15
16
ANNEX “4”
Sixth Judicial Region
Branch ____
Kalibo, Aklan
ROSE M. BATO,
Plaintiff,
- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. _______
FOR: SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

AND DAMAGES
JUAN S. LEGARDA,
Defendant.
x--------------------x
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
(Mavy Delgado)
Name of Witness: MAVY DELGADO, single, of legal age, Filipino a

resident of New Buswang, Kalibo, Aklan
Name of examining lawyer: KEEVIN SARCENO PAUNE, Bartolome, Dela

Cruz, Nacar, & Paune Law Firm, Kalibo, Aklan
Date & Place where examination was held: April 1, 2023, Bartolome, Dela
Cruz, Nacar, & Paune Law Firm, ACC Building, Archbishop Gabriel B.
Reyes St., Kalibo, Aklan
OFFER OF TESTIMONY:
To the Honorable Court: We are offering the testimony of the witness,

MAVY DELGADO to prove that:
17
1. The fact that Mavy Delgado is the secretary of Atty. Jose P. Rizal
who has an office address at Andagao, Kalibo, Aklan.
2. The fact that she personally knows Rose M. Bato, plaintiff in this
case, and Juan S. Legarda, defendant in this case.
3. The fact that Rose Bato has not appeared in the law office of Atty.
Jose P. Rizal and has failed to give the full payment to Juan S.
Legarda on March 30, 2021 and March 31, 2021.
4. And all other material allegations in the complaint.
In the course of her testimony, the witness will identify the documentary
and object evidence of the plaintiff which are attached to this Judicial
Affidavit.
The testimony of Mavy Delgado as witness herself was reduced to

Judicial Affidavit pursuant to A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (Judicial Affidavit Rule),
and which Judicial Affidavit will serve as her direct testimony in this case.
Q1: Please state your name and other circumstances.
A1: I am Mavy Delgado, married, of legal age, Filipino Citizen, and a

resident of New Buswang, Kalibo, Aklan.
Q2: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth in this sworn statement that you are about to make?
A2: Yes, Attorney.
Q3: Your testimony is under oath and in case your statements are found
to be untrue, you may be held criminally liable for false testimony or
perjury. Do you understand that?
A3: Yes, Attorney.
Q4: How are you connected with Atty. Jose P. Rizal?
18
A4: I am the current secretary of Atty. Jose P. Rizal in his law office at
Andagao, Kalibo, Aklan. I have been employed by him since January 2,
2017.
MANIFESTATION: Your Honor, may we request that this Certificate of

Employment dated March 30, 2023 presented and identified by the witness
be marked as Exhibit “1”.
Q5: How did you come to know about the Plaintiff, Rose Bato, and
Defendant, Juan Legarda?
A5: I know them as Atty. Rizal’s clients who went to the law office last
January 20, 2021.
Q6: What are the office hours of Atty. Rizal’s law office?
A6: Atty. Rizal’s office is open from 8:00 in the morning until 5:00 in the
afternoon, Mondays to Saturdays.
Q7: What time do you normally report for work?
A7: I routinely report for work before 8:00 in the morning and leave the
office premises after 5:00 in the afternoon.
Q8: Where were you on March 30, 2021, and March 31, 2021?
A8: I was at the law office from 8:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M., on both dates,
casually doing my workload and encoding the usual paperwork for Atty.
Rizal.
Q9: On both dates, did Rose Bato visit Atty. Rizal’s office?
A9: No, Sir.
Q10: When was the last time you saw Rose Bato in Atty. Rizal’s office?
A10: The last time I saw Rose Bato in the law office was on January 20,
2021. He was with Juan Legarda at that time.
19
Q11: Do you have anything to say or clarify?
A11: None, Attorney.
Q12: Do you have anything more to add?
A12: None, Attorney.
Q13: Under your present oath, do you affirm and confirm the contents of
your affidavit?
A13: Yes, Attorney.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 1st

day of April 2023 at Kalibo, Aklan.
MAVY DELGADO
Affiant
Driver License: F07-69696969
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in Kalibo, Aklan this 1st day

of April 2023 by the above-named affiant, who has satisfactorily proven to
me her identity through her Driver’s License: F07-69696969 valid until
2027, to be the same person who presented and personally signed before me
the foregoing affidavit and attested that the contents thereof are true and
correct; and that she voluntarily executed the same.
ATTY. KEEVIN SARCENO PAUNE

Notary Public
Roll No. 20215695/ October 21, 2021
PTR No. 9515365/ 08.15.2021 / Aklan
20
Tel No. (036) 2689730
Doc. No. _67___;
Page No. _90___;
Book No. _90___;
Series of 2023
ATTESTATION OF EXAMINING LAWYER
I, KEEVIN SARCENO PAUNE, of legal age with office address at

ACC Building, Archbishop Gabriel B. Reyes St., Kalibo, Aklan, after
having been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby attest that:
1. I am the examining lawyer of the foregoing judicial affidavit;
2. I have faithfully recorded the questions I asked of her and the

corresponding answers that she gave in response to the questions
asked;
3. Neither I nor any other person/s coached this witness-affiant

regarding the answers given by her.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand below this 1st day of

April 2023 at Kalibo, Aklan, Philippines.
ATTY. KEVIN SARCENO PAUNE

Affiant
21
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in Kalibo, Aklan this
1st day of April 2023 by the above-named affiant, who has satisfactorily
proven to me his identity through his Lifetime IBP No. 168765 valid until
correct; and that he voluntarily executed the same.
ATTY. MYLENE S. BARTOLOME

Notary Public
Roll No. 20190092/ March 21, 2020
PTR No. 6415654/ 06.24.2020 / Aklan
Tel No. (036) 2689730
Doc. No. __67__;
Page No. _89___;
Book No. _21___;
Series of 2023.
22
EXHIBIT “1”
23
ANNEX “5”
24
ANNEX “6”
25
ANNEX “7”

Sixth Judicial Region
Branch ____
Kalibo, Aklan
ROSE M. BATO,
Plaintiff,
- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. _______

FOR:SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
AND DAMAGES
JUAN S. LEGARDA,
Defendant.
x--------------------x
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
(Anthony Sta. Maria)
Name of Witness: ANTHONY STA. MARIA, single, of legal age, Filipino a

resident of Poblacion, Kalibo, Aklan
Name of examining lawyer: ANNYKA FRANCES BEATRIZ C. DELA

CRUZ, Bartolome, Dela Cruz, Nacar, & Paune Law Firm, Kalibo, Aklan
Date & Place where examination was held: April 1, 2023, Bartolome, Dela
Cruz, Nacar, & Paune Law Firm, ACC Building, Archbishop Gabriel B.
Reyes St., Kalibo, Aklan
OFFER OF TESTIMONY:
To the Honorable Court: We are offering the testimony of the witness,

ANTHONY STA. MARIA to prove that:
1. The fact that Anthony Sta. Maria is the assigned caretaker Mr. Juan
S. Legarda to take care of the property being disputed in the above
case.
26
2. The fact that on March 1, 2021, Rose M. Bato had visited the
property in broad daylight and had asked Anthony Sta. Maria to
allow her to enter as she is the new owner of the said property.
3. The fact that Anthony Sta. Maria refused such entry, as he was not
duly informed by Juan S. Legarda.
4. The fact that upon refusal, the company of Rose M. Bato had
allegedly threatened Anthony Sta. Maria as they were armed with
small hand pistols, which eventually prompted Anthony Sta. Maria
to allow entry and vacate the premises.
5. And all other material allegations in the complaint.
In the course of his testimony, the witness will identify the documentary
and object evidence of the plaintiff which are attached to this Judicial
Affidavit.
The testimony of the plaintiff as witness himself was reduced to Judicial

Affidavit pursuant to A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC (Judicial Affidavit Rule), and
which Judicial Affidavit will serve as her direct testimony in this case.
Q1: Please state your name and other circumstances.
A1: Ako si Anthony Sta. Maria, 42 years old, single, Filipino,

taga-Poblacion, Kalibo, Aklan. Ako ro tagabantay o caretaker it eogta ni
Juan S. Legarda sa Poblcaion it New Washington.
Q2: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth in this sworn statement that you are about to make?
A2: Huo, Attorney.
Q3: Your testimony is under oath and in case your statements are found
to be untrue, you may be held criminally liable for false testimony or
perjury. Do you understand that?
A3: Huo, Attorney.
Q4: How do you come to know about the defendant, Juan S. Legarda?
27
A4: Hakilaea ko imaw kasi naga-usoy imaw it taga-bantay it anang eogta
sa New Washington, hay ako ro pinaka-maeapit na baeay sa eogta ngato,
kaya ako ro ginpangabayan nana.
Q5: How did you respond to the offer of Mr. Legarda?
A5: Nagsugot mat-a ako ron hay may sahod mat-a ag wa man gid it
mabug-at na trabaho.
Q6: Did Mr. Legarda ever mention to you that there was a sale of that
particular property?
A6: Huo Attorney, nakamitlang mat-a imaw kakon na ginabaligya nana.
Q7: Was there any update regarding that sale?
A7: Uwa Attorney, ulihi nana nga hambae kakon hay nasukot paeang
nana kat gabakae hay nalisdan pa kuno galling imaw icontact.
Q8: Do you know Ms. Rose M. Bato?
A8: Huo, Attorney. Isang beses ko malang imaw hakilaea kat nagbisita
imaw idto sa eogta ni Juan S. Legarda.
Q9: When did this visit happen?
A9: Nagbisita imaw ku March 1, 2021.
Q10: Was she with someone when she visited?
A10: Huo Attorney, may kaibahan imaw nga tatlong eaki.
Q11: What happened during her visit?
A11: Nagtawag anay imaw it tawo Attorney, hay sakto naga-pangahoy

ako kato sa gilid, kaya habatian ko mat-a imaw. Pag-eapit ko kana hay
naghambae imaw nga imaw eon kuno ro bag-ong tag-ana it datong eogta.
Hay, nagbalibad ta ako ron nga wa makon ako hahambaean ni Juan S.
Legarda.
Q12: What happened after you refused entry?
A12: Pagkabalibad ko kato kanda hay guing pakitaan ako it madya

handgun na baril it anang mga kaibahan, kaya madya kinoebaan ako. Kaya
hapilitan guid ako kato Attorney nga pasugtan lang sanda.
Q13: Did you inform Mr. Juan S. Legarda regarding this matter?
28
A13: Huo, Attorney, gintawagan ko imaw ag gin-text hay uwa imaw abi
kato kasabat.
MANIFESTATION: Your Honor, may we request that this TEXT

CONVERSATION dated March 1, 2021 presented and identified by the
witness be marked as Exhibit “2”.
Q14: Do you have anything to say or clarify?
A14: Wa eon man, Atty.
Q15: Do you have anything more to add?
A15: Wa eon, Atty.
Q16: Under your present oath, do you affirm and confirm the contents of
your affidavit?
A16: Huo, Atty.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 1st

day of April 2023 at Kalibo, Aklan.
ANTHONY STA. MARIA

Affiant
National ID: 1024-1996-9101-1214
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in Kalibo, Aklan this 1st

day of April 2023 by the above-named affiant, who has satisfactorily proven
to me his identity through his National ID No. 1024-1996-9101-1214 valid
until 2030, to be the same person who presented and personally signed
before me the foregoing affidavit and attested that the contents thereof are
true and correct; and that he voluntarily executed the same.

Notary Public
29
Roll No. 20190093/ October 21, 2020
PTR No. 9515365/ 08.15.2020 / Aklan
Tel No. (036) 2689730
Doc. No. _102___;

Page No. _234___;
Book No. _25___;
Series of 2023
ATTESTATION OF EXAMINING LAWYER
I, ANNYKA FRANCES BEATRIZ C. DELA CRUZ, of legal age

with office address at ACC Building, Archbishop Gabriel B. Reyes St.,
Kalibo, Aklan, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby
attest that:
1. I am the examining lawyer of the foregoing judicial affidavit;
2. I have faithfully recorded the questions I asked of her and the

corresponding answers that she gave in response to the questions
asked;
3. Neither I nor any other person/s coached this witness-affiant

regarding the answers given by her.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand below this 1st day of

April 2023 at Kalibo, Aklan, Philippines.
30
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in Kalibo, Aklan this

1st day of April 2023 by the above-named affiant, who has satisfactorily
proven to me her identity through her Lifetime IBP No. 170931 valid until
correct; and that she voluntarily executed the same.
ATTY. JERENA J. NACAR

Notary Public
Roll No. 91625 / June 21, 2020
PTR No. 0694537/ 01.05.2020 / Aklan
BARTOLOME, DELA CRUZ, NACAR, & PAUNE LAW
FIRM
Tel No. (036) 2689730
Doc. No. _159___;
Page No. _239___;
Book No. _30___;
Series of 2023.
31
EXHIBIT “2”
32
ANNEX “8”
33

Regional Trial Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Trial Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Trial Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

DEFENDANT, through the undersigned counsels, and unto this

1. The defendant admits the contents of paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 insofar

2. The defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 4, 5,

3. The defendant specifically denies the allegations set forth in

4. The defendant was already using a different Facebook account

5. The defendant admits conditionally the allegations set forth in

6. The defendant partially admits and partially denies the allegations

Defendant denies that he did not voluntarily prevent the fulfillment of

SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

7. The plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant.

In the case of Ayala Life Insurance, Inc. v Ray Burton Development

“Evidently, before the remedy of specific performance

Here, the un-notarized Deed of Conditional Sale is considered as a

Furthermore, Article 1260 also provides that once the consignation

It is therefore apparent that the plaintiff has not exhausted other

Moreover, plaintiff also erred in instituting a case for the specific

Herein defendant hereby repleads by reference the foregoing

8. In filing the malicious and baseless complaint, to pay the following

a. P50,000.00 as moral damages for the mental anguish suffered

9. That in prematurely possessing the property of defendant by way of

In paragraph 9 of the plaintiff’s complaint, Rose Bato claimed that she

The defendant’s caretaker, Anthony Sta. Maria, would testify to the

Attached hereto is Annex “6” which are the CCTV footages

After the incident, Anthony informed the defendant, evidenced by a

AND SUMMARY OF INTENDED TESTIMONIES

10. MAVY DELGADO, will present herself as a witness, who will

a. To prove that she is the secretary of Atty. Jose P. Rizal;

11. ANTHONY STA. MARIA, will present himself as a witness, who

a. To prove that he is the assigned caretaker of Mr. Juan S. Legarda

b. To prove that Rose M. Bato had visited the property in broad

c. To prove that he refused such entry, as he was not duly

d. To prove that upon refusal, the company of Rose M. Bato had

OBJECT AND DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS

AND THE PURPOSE THEREOF

a. Copy of Police Blotter – to prove that he lost his bag, which

c. Copy of Screenshot of Defendant’s Facebook Dropdown List

d. Copy of Transmittal Form - to prove that only a demand letter

e. Copy of Screenshot of CCTV Footages - to prove that threat and

f. Copy of Text Message of Anthony Sta. Maria - to prove the

WHEREFORE, it is earnestly prayed of this Honorable Court that

1. FIFTY THOUSAND(P50,000.00)PESOS as moral damages;

2. THIRTY THOUSAND(30,000.00)PESOS as for the attorney’s

3. Costs of this suit.

4. Reconveyance of possession based on ownership.

5. Ordering the liability of the said defendant extinguished.

BARTOLOME, DELA CRUZ, NACAR, & PAUNE LAW FIRM

ANNYKA FRANCES BEATRIZ C. DELA CRUZ

I, Juan S. Legarda, Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident of

1. I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of this Answer with Special

4. That I hereby certify that at the time of the filing of this

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this

Copy furnished by electronic email:

Atty. Ervin Ralph Venus

Republic of the Philippines

Doc. No. 67;